This mostly sounds good, since Russia does genuinely have too much bureaucracy and regulations, but Navalny is having his own work out for him. Russia is now 40th in the World Bank’s Ease of Business rankings, sharply up from 112th in 2013 (the first full year of Putin’s third term).

A high minimum wage is a great idea both out of economic justice concerns and to disincentivize low skilled labor migration. Russia’s current minimum wage is entirely symbolic.

The UK’s Windfall Tax produced £4.5, almost pocket change by national standards, so this is probably just a way to legitimize past illegal privatizations under the mask of populism.

Time to Fight Corruption, and Not to Make Peace with Thievery

Bureacrats should live in accordance with their salaries. If there’s a mismatch, either they explain it, or they answer it in court.

Anti-corruption processes should be public and transparency, not hushed away like with Serdyukov and Vasilieva. [The Defense Minister dismissed for corruption]

Transparency in state corporations.

If MSM publishes facts about a bureaucrat’s corruption, he should refute them or give up his post and be prosecuted.

Uncovering the end owners of all companies that provide goods and services to the state and to state companies.

Navalny claims that even his detractors recognize him as the leading anti-corruption expert in Russia, which gives him the qualifications necessary to root it out.

I agree that if anything will improve under Navalny, it will likely be corruption.

However, there are good reasons doubt it will be the revolutionary change he promises for two reasons. Russia is “naturally” corrupt, like most of the rest of South/Eastern Europe; places like Italy and Hungary remain considerably more “corrupt” than the countries of “core Europe” despite decades of institutional convergence under the EU. This goes back to millennial factors revolving around culture and possibly selection for beyond-kin altruism in core Europe, that didn’t operate so much outside it.

Second, Navalny is not going to be able to pick his cadres from scratch. He will have to draw heavily from the ranks of the liberal elites, and they are only less corrupt than the people currently in power to the extent of their own distance from the feeding trough. Whenever they did have access to power, the likes of Kasyanov, Belykh, Ponamarev, etc., proved adept at translating it into wealth for themselves.

Time to Trust People, and Not to Decide Everything in Moscow

All but the smallest decisions are made in Moscow… All of Russia should develop, not just Moscow.

More taxes should be kept in local budgets, instead of going to Moscow

Local administrations should receive more rights and resources for solving the problems of people “on the ground.”

This is just a mix of things that have already been done and unworkable populism.

Moscow is central to Russia, and is much more developed, primarily because it has by far Russia’s highest concentration of human capital – not because it concentrates resources (it is a massive net donor).

Second, responsibility for education and healthcare has long been largely under the purview of local authorities. In fact, Navalny’s demand that the federal government should be responsible for not only guarding the borders and maintaining order, but also “building roads and hospitals,” would be a move towards centralization. I.e., his rhetoric is not even internally consistent.

Perhaps Navalny means decentralization more in a political sense. This will be a disaster, since Russia has no substantive experience of local self-government devoted to the commonweal. This is a product of Anglo civilization that it spent centuries developing and that has no chance of working in Russia. When local bigwigs acquire too much autonomy, as in the 1990s, corruption and nepotism increase, if anything.

Economic Development, Not Political Isolation

Russia should use its unique location between Europe and Asia to become a respectable partner for everyone.

The hundreds of billions thrown away on the wars in Syria and Ukraine, and on helping far-off countries, are better spent on improving life at home.

Our country would profit from moving politically and economically closer to European countries.

Visa regime with Central Asia and the South Caucasus. Labor migrants should come on work visas, and not in an uncontrollable flood, like today.

Russia should be the leading country of Europe and Asia, expanding its influence through economic might and cultural expansion, including worldwide support for the Russian language.

Navalny has been consistently strong on immigration, much more so than Putin, if less so than Trump. That said, he does not clarify his stance on illegals currently in Russia, nor even on precisely how many work visas he intends to give out to Uzbeks and Tajiks, nor details on how those long borders would be secured. Nonetheless, apart from his record on corruption, the immigration question is Navalny’s other major ace against Putin, especially now that the recent terrorist attacks in Saint-Petersburg and Astrakhan have brought it out into the limelight.

Navalny’s foreign policy is a trainwreck that will unilaterally any influence Russia still has over Ukraine and rule out the reunification of the Russian nation, the largest divided nation on the planet, most likely forever. This should be read in conjunction with his public statements on holding a second referendum on Crimea’s status. Even though the pro-unification side will undoubtedly win under a fair vote, this will still functionally be a retreat from the Russian government’s position that the incorporation of Crimea is a fait accompli and non-negotiable. With Donbass unilaterally surrendered to the tender mercies of the anti-Russian regime in Kiev, the status of the peninsula will become a leverage point against Russia by a vengeful Ukraine, and possibly even by the West as a whole, if Navalny’s hoped for “reset” with Europe and the US doesn’t pan out.

Navalny’s comments on global economic and soft power are populist nonsense that a quick glance at Russia’s share of global GDP should instantly dispel.

Justice for All, or Impunity for Siloviks

Justice reform. Courts must be respected and truly independent.

The police should be trusted, not feared; service there should be prestigious and well compensated.

Siloviks should be stripped of excessive authority, which allow them to enact levies upon entrepreneurs.

All well and good, though short on details, which we absolutely need to know if we are to assess whether the rate of improvement under Navalny is likely to be higher than under Putin.

For instance, according to the World Bank’s Enterprise Surveys, the percentage of Russian firms expected to give gifts in meetings with tax officials fell from 55% in 2002 to 7% by 2012, which hardly hints at soaring silovik banditry that he implies is happening under Putin.

I’d be interested in hearing more about Moscow as net donor, since I’ve heard the counter-claim that a super-majority of the money earmarked for the provinces actually ends up spent on Moscow oblast. The latter would not be too surprising, but I heard it from the usual liberal Moscow types who think that Russian shit is somehow uniquely stinky. So far as I can tell, this is a funny kind of narcissism.

Moscow the city gives away 45% of its tax revenue to the center, which is only 20th percentage wise out of ~85 regions, but would certainly translate into the highest net contribution by far given (1) its economic preponderance and (2) the fact that in percentage terms, it also gets the fewest transfers from the federal center, which constitute only 3% of its own spending.

*25000 roubles is roughly the median wage in Russia. If it’s set to be the minimum wage, basic laws of supply and demand suggest, that HALF of Russia’s workers will become unemployed.

*abolishing contruction regulations to cheapen the cost of contruction may not be such a good idea, since these regulations usually exist for a reason.

*For a “populist”, his foreign policy platform is extremely unpopular. Russian masses are not pacifists, they certainly don’t want a retreat from Syria, let alone Ukraine. Speaking of Navalny, I don’t understand how a man goes from comparing Georgians to rodents during 2008 war to being such a cuck now – must the result of Jewish influence.

*25000 roubles is roughly the median wage in Russia. If it’s set to be the minimum wage,

Still, vast numbers of Russians get "supplements" to their salaries in envelopes and those are, of course, not taxable. This is absolutely true for the most of service sector. In real industry things are a bit different, not to mention that real pay is much higher. 2-3 years of experience CNC operator somewhere in Rostov-On-Don or Nizhny will get 50-60 000 easily and those places are much cheaper to live in than Moscow or St.Petersburg. Well, good level CNC guy for Admiralty Shipyard will get around 160 000 and those kind of jobs are in huge demand, enough to go to any Russian job site.

*25000 roubles is roughly the median wage in Russia. If it's set to be the minimum wage, basic laws of supply and demand suggest, that HALF of Russia's workers will become unemployed.

*abolishing contruction regulations to cheapen the cost of contruction may not be such a good idea, since these regulations usually exist for a reason. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pktM__i-8IQ

*For a "populist", his foreign policy platform is extremely unpopular. Russian masses are not pacifists, they certainly don't want a retreat from Syria, let alone Ukraine. Speaking of Navalny, I don't understand how a man goes from comparing Georgians to rodents during 2008 war to being such a cuck now - must the result of Jewish influence.

*25000 roubles is roughly the median wage in Russia. If it’s set to be the minimum wage,

Still, vast numbers of Russians get “supplements” to their salaries in envelopes and those are, of course, not taxable. This is absolutely true for the most of service sector. In real industry things are a bit different, not to mention that real pay is much higher. 2-3 years of experience CNC operator somewhere in Rostov-On-Don or Nizhny will get 50-60 000 easily and those places are much cheaper to live in than Moscow or St.Petersburg. Well, good level CNC guy for Admiralty Shipyard will get around 160 000 and those kind of jobs are in huge demand, enough to go to any Russian job site.

I'd be interested in hearing more about Moscow as net donor, since I've heard the counter-claim that a super-majority of the money earmarked for the provinces actually ends up spent on Moscow oblast. The latter would not be too surprising, but I heard it from the usual liberal Moscow types who think that Russian shit is somehow uniquely stinky. So far as I can tell, this is a funny kind of narcissism.

Moscow the city gives away 45% of its tax revenue to the center, which is only 20th percentage wise out of ~85 regions, but would certainly translate into the highest net contribution by far given (1) its economic preponderance and (2) the fact that in percentage terms, it also gets the fewest transfers from the federal center, which constitute only 3% of its own spending.

Thanks. The link is very interesting. I'll have to look at it more carefully. Especially surprising to me (though maybe not to you?) is that the regions most highly rated for economic development are some of the sparsely populated non-Russian ethnic republics. I can read such an article with effort. But it is a shame that there are aren't more such articles in English. And an even greater shame that so few educated Russians seem to be aware of this kind of information.

I posted this comment in response to Anatoliy’s post on the attacks in St. P. Re-posting here as that blog is a few days old and I’m still interested in your response:

I find your commentary on Russia here and elsewhere very interesting and insightful. Could you elaborate on the “shadow” group to which you refer? There are some who assert that Putin is in the center of a 5-spoke wheel, balancing the interests of the siloviki, (what might be described as) patriots, nationalists, liberals, and communists. I think there’s a lot of truth to that, but I’ve always suspected that it’s the siloviki (the shadow group to which you refer?) who are keeping the others at bay while acting on a long-term strategy (though perhaps it’s wishful thinking that Russia has one) and Putin is a (very intelligent and articulate) figurehead. What’s your take?

who are keeping the others at bay while acting on a long-term strategy (though perhaps it’s wishful thinking that Russia has one) and Putin is a (very intelligent and articulate) figurehead. What’s your take?

I can only speculate, of course. I wish I had real insights but your description of Putin's balancing act generally coincides with the opinion of many other analysts within Russia. As per long term strategy, and that is what really matters, do not forget that while Evgeniy Primakov was alive he had a major input on that. Now, consider the fact of a meteoric rise of a General Staff star. I think, most of the events of the last three years have been "handled" through analytical structures (including GRU) of the General Staff and I think (I only speculate) that Valery Gerasimov (Chief Of General Staff) has a major input not only on military-strategic and foreign policy issues but on domestic too. I can not say that I am against Russian military getting more influence, if anything else--I am only for it. Firing of Sergei Ivanov (a known economic liberal) was one of the signs of a slow shift in Putin's inner circle away from "western" liberal model. Who are those people who form long term strategies? Some of them are known: Lavorv, Chemezov etc. But today we can see an emergence of military structures as major players (after all, they do have a track record to back it all up) and I think a number of people from GRU has a very serious input on both foreign and domestic policies. In the end, unlike some BS financial system, armed forces are bound by real industries (manufacturing sector), mobilization potential, including personnel, R&D and cutting edge scientific research, unlike it is the case with current Russian "economic block" which is related to the issues of real power the same way as I am related to the Ming Dynasty. Putin is economic liberal and he is yet to face the most important dilemma of his life. In the end, FSB can not protect him, Armed Forces can.

Moscow the city gives away 45% of its tax revenue to the center, which is only 20th percentage wise out of ~85 regions, but would certainly translate into the highest net contribution by far given (1) its economic preponderance and (2) the fact that in percentage terms, it also gets the fewest transfers from the federal center, which constitute only 3% of its own spending.

(In contrast, for instance, 80% of the Chechen/Ingush local budget consists of transfers from outside).

Thanks. The link is very interesting. I’ll have to look at it more carefully. Especially surprising to me (though maybe not to you?) is that the regions most highly rated for economic development are some of the sparsely populated non-Russian ethnic republics. I can read such an article with effort. But it is a shame that there are aren’t more such articles in English. And an even greater shame that so few educated Russians seem to be aware of this kind of information.

Thanks. The link is very interesting. I'll have to look at it more carefully. Especially surprising to me (though maybe not to you?) is that the regions most highly rated for economic development are some of the sparsely populated non-Russian ethnic republics. I can read such an article with effort. But it is a shame that there are aren't more such articles in English. And an even greater shame that so few educated Russians seem to be aware of this kind of information.

I posted this comment in response to Anatoliy's post on the attacks in St. P. Re-posting here as that blog is a few days old and I'm still interested in your response:

I find your commentary on Russia here and elsewhere very interesting and insightful. Could you elaborate on the “shadow” group to which you refer? There are some who assert that Putin is in the center of a 5-spoke wheel, balancing the interests of the siloviki, (what might be described as) patriots, nationalists, liberals, and communists. I think there’s a lot of truth to that, but I’ve always suspected that it’s the siloviki (the shadow group to which you refer?) who are keeping the others at bay while acting on a long-term strategy (though perhaps it’s wishful thinking that Russia has one) and Putin is a (very intelligent and articulate) figurehead. What’s your take?

who are keeping the others at bay while acting on a long-term strategy (though perhaps it’s wishful thinking that Russia has one) and Putin is a (very intelligent and articulate) figurehead. What’s your take?

I can only speculate, of course. I wish I had real insights but your description of Putin’s balancing act generally coincides with the opinion of many other analysts within Russia. As per long term strategy, and that is what really matters, do not forget that while Evgeniy Primakov was alive he had a major input on that. Now, consider the fact of a meteoric rise of a General Staff star. I think, most of the events of the last three years have been “handled” through analytical structures (including GRU) of the General Staff and I think (I only speculate) that Valery Gerasimov (Chief Of General Staff) has a major input not only on military-strategic and foreign policy issues but on domestic too. I can not say that I am against Russian military getting more influence, if anything else–I am only for it. Firing of Sergei Ivanov (a known economic liberal) was one of the signs of a slow shift in Putin’s inner circle away from “western” liberal model. Who are those people who form long term strategies? Some of them are known: Lavorv, Chemezov etc. But today we can see an emergence of military structures as major players (after all, they do have a track record to back it all up) and I think a number of people from GRU has a very serious input on both foreign and domestic policies. In the end, unlike some BS financial system, armed forces are bound by real industries (manufacturing sector), mobilization potential, including personnel, R&D and cutting edge scientific research, unlike it is the case with current Russian “economic block” which is related to the issues of real power the same way as I am related to the Ming Dynasty. Putin is economic liberal and he is yet to face the most important dilemma of his life. In the end, FSB can not protect him, Armed Forces can.

Thanks for the reply. You make a number of very good points. What do you see as Putin's most important dilemma? I don't claim any originality in my ideas, but I think Russia's greatest long-term existential threats are the neoliberal mindset of its economic policymakers and the influx of migrants from Central Asia. I thank Anatoly for raising the latter issue on this site. I am generally supportive of Putin, but "standing up" to the West means little if the same population replacement/Islamification project is allowed to proceed in Russia.

I am sure that no individual entrepreneurs will ever declare a smaller income than they in fact have in order to be freed from taxes, regulations and accounting requirements.
Seriously, Navalny’s chances of gaining absolute power in Russia are considerably less than the chances of Bronze Age Pervert gaining absolute power in the United States.

Russia should use its unique location between Europe and Asia to become a respectable partner for everyone.

A laudable goal that makes eminent sense. A motivator for Ukraine too.

The hundreds of billions thrown away on the wars in Syria and Ukraine, and on helping far-off countries, are better spent on improving life at home.

Who could argue with this? The Russian war in Ukraine was a bad idea to begin with and prolonging it, along with its associated monetary and human costs, wont make it any better. Instead of using demagoguery to deflect public scrutiny of poor economic policies at home to foreign wars, Russian policy should be to improve things at home. Lots of resources are being wasted to wage these wars, and to what ultimate benefit?

Karlin’s not at all clear on why he foresees Navalny’s foreign policy steps as somehow being so hugely detrimental to Russia’s ability to ‘reunify’ itself. A + B = ?

Looks like Armenia would be thrown under the bus, which is ironic, as the young, anti Russian, atlanticist types there quite like him. Presumably they’ve just read Washington post articles about him without bothering to look up his policies.

P.S. Anatoly, you should go there in the summer: Take the train to Vladikavkaz, rent a zhiguli there, then drive it to and around Yerevan.

Russia should use its unique location between Europe and Asia to become a respectable partner for everyone.

A laudable goal that makes eminent sense. A motivator for Ukraine too.

The hundreds of billions thrown away on the wars in Syria and Ukraine, and on helping far-off countries, are better spent on improving life at home.

Who could argue with this? The Russian war in Ukraine was a bad idea to begin with and prolonging it, along with its associated monetary and human costs, wont make it any better. Instead of using demagoguery to deflect public scrutiny of poor economic policies at home to foreign wars, Russian policy should be to improve things at home. Lots of resources are being wasted to wage these wars, and to what ultimate benefit?

Karlin's not at all clear on why he foresees Navalny's foreign policy steps as somehow being so hugely detrimental to Russia's ability to 'reunify' itself. A + B = ?

Who could argue with this?

People who are less short-sighted.
Retreat, and Russia is next.

Karlin’s not at all clear on why he foresees Navalny’s foreign policy steps as somehow being so hugely detrimental to Russia’s ability to ‘reunify’ itself.

So in terms of geopolitics, the Putin vs. Navalny choice boils down to – “Eurasia,” global independence and anti-Westernism plus integration with the Central Asia and the Islamic World, vs. integration with Europe (involving loss of being a totally independent global actor) plus separation from the Islamic world. This is reminiscent of the Balkan Orthodox saying expressing preference for being within the Ottoman versus within the Western system – “better a Turkish turban than a Latin tiara.”

That is misleading because integration with Europe and integration with the Islamic World do not exclude each other.
Europe is increasingly part of the Islamic World or haven't you noticed the increasing number of Muslims in Europe?

Russia should use its unique location between Europe and Asia to become a respectable partner for everyone.

A laudable goal that makes eminent sense. A motivator for Ukraine too.

The hundreds of billions thrown away on the wars in Syria and Ukraine, and on helping far-off countries, are better spent on improving life at home.

Who could argue with this? The Russian war in Ukraine was a bad idea to begin with and prolonging it, along with its associated monetary and human costs, wont make it any better. Instead of using demagoguery to deflect public scrutiny of poor economic policies at home to foreign wars, Russian policy should be to improve things at home. Lots of resources are being wasted to wage these wars, and to what ultimate benefit?

Karlin's not at all clear on why he foresees Navalny's foreign policy steps as somehow being so hugely detrimental to Russia's ability to 'reunify' itself. A + B = ?

Karlin’s not at all clear on why he foresees Navalny’s foreign policy steps as somehow being so hugely detrimental to Russia’s ability to ‘reunify’ itself

It would mean abandoning plans to absorb parts of Ukraine, Belarus and northern Kazakhstan. Close ties with Europe would preclude these things from ever happening.

Belarus and Ukraine are separate nationalities and need no forceful absorption into Russia. Rus was and unwieldy amalgamation of 9-11 principalities that were constantly at war amongst each each other during the middle ages. It was an empire held loosely together by, as AP often points out, a Scandinavian commercial interest. Neither a solid ground unto which to create a new Russian nation. The Soviets tried, and their efforts miserably failed, and any new such plans are also doomed to failure. You seem to be smitten by a disease of the mind related to the loss of an empire: The Russian Empire, that ended a century ago, and the Soviet Empire that ended in the 1990's. Empires come and go, isn't it time that you faced reality?...

Looks like Armenia would be thrown under the bus, which is ironic, as the young, anti Russian, atlanticist types there quite like him. Presumably they've just read Washington post articles about him without bothering to look up his policies.

P.S. Anatoly, you should go there in the summer: Take the train to Vladikavkaz, rent a zhiguli there, then drive it to and around Yerevan.

Armenia is almost totally dependent on Russia for remittances from expats and military protection. It has *very* poor relations with all its (much stronger) neighbors except Iran.

Unlike say, Tajiks or Georgians; Armenians are definitely a net contributor to the Russian Federation. The average Armenian in Russia is generally more successful than Ivan,unlike (((virtually))) every other non-Slav ethnic group. Unlike the other peoples in the area, Armenians are secure in their identity; so you don't see the Svidomism that's constantly displayed in say, Georgians.

Armenians contributed the only Byzantine Emperors who weren't utter crap, John Tzimisces and the Macedonian and the Comneni Dynasties. We wuz.

who are keeping the others at bay while acting on a long-term strategy (though perhaps it’s wishful thinking that Russia has one) and Putin is a (very intelligent and articulate) figurehead. What’s your take?

I can only speculate, of course. I wish I had real insights but your description of Putin's balancing act generally coincides with the opinion of many other analysts within Russia. As per long term strategy, and that is what really matters, do not forget that while Evgeniy Primakov was alive he had a major input on that. Now, consider the fact of a meteoric rise of a General Staff star. I think, most of the events of the last three years have been "handled" through analytical structures (including GRU) of the General Staff and I think (I only speculate) that Valery Gerasimov (Chief Of General Staff) has a major input not only on military-strategic and foreign policy issues but on domestic too. I can not say that I am against Russian military getting more influence, if anything else--I am only for it. Firing of Sergei Ivanov (a known economic liberal) was one of the signs of a slow shift in Putin's inner circle away from "western" liberal model. Who are those people who form long term strategies? Some of them are known: Lavorv, Chemezov etc. But today we can see an emergence of military structures as major players (after all, they do have a track record to back it all up) and I think a number of people from GRU has a very serious input on both foreign and domestic policies. In the end, unlike some BS financial system, armed forces are bound by real industries (manufacturing sector), mobilization potential, including personnel, R&D and cutting edge scientific research, unlike it is the case with current Russian "economic block" which is related to the issues of real power the same way as I am related to the Ming Dynasty. Putin is economic liberal and he is yet to face the most important dilemma of his life. In the end, FSB can not protect him, Armed Forces can.

Thanks for the reply. You make a number of very good points. What do you see as Putin’s most important dilemma? I don’t claim any originality in my ideas, but I think Russia’s greatest long-term existential threats are the neoliberal mindset of its economic policymakers and the influx of migrants from Central Asia. I thank Anatoly for raising the latter issue on this site. I am generally supportive of Putin, but “standing up” to the West means little if the same population replacement/Islamification project is allowed to proceed in Russia.

but I think Russia’s greatest long-term existential threats are the neoliberal mindset

You think absolutely correct. Bottom line--economic "liberalism", "democratic capitalism", any other simulacra used to cover up financial parasites, do not work, they never worked anywhere. Continuing with neo-liberal monetarist policies of Russia's oligarchic class, as represented by such "thinkers" as Kudrin, Gref, Medvedev (among other Gaidarists) is clear and present danger to Russia. The same as refusing revision of robber "privatization" of 1990s. Here, Putin is a liability--he had no background whatsoever in serious industry or military (being some mid-level operative of KGB doesn't count, Putin is a lawyer by education) by the time he was getting closer to the highest levels of power and that showed, and continues to show, albeit he learns. He (meaning he and those whom he listens to) either comes up with new social contract soon, and the first point of this social contract means a massive re-industrialization (it is ongoing, but slow) and that implies a massive rotation of "elites", or he will be swept away. I think, at least I hope so, he knows this. Economic "liberalism", meaning oligarchic capitalism, has no future in Russia. But that gets us deeper into the real history of Russia and into geopolitics of present moment. You may find this interesting. Lavrov, certainly, gets it.

I, for some reason, thought it was about actual policies, not Navalnyi's wet dreams. Albeit, one has to consider him an excellent tool for what is commonly "termed" as Kremlin. Navalnyi fits perfectly into what can only be described as a good operation of influence by (counter) intelligence services. In the end, attack on Dimon and by default on his "cabinet", actually, achieved its tacit objectives--Medvedev and what is associated with him is now hated even more. It is one thing to be assaulted from the actual left and center, totally another--by some creature which commands attention of many young "westernizers".

Thanks for the reply. You make a number of very good points. What do you see as Putin's most important dilemma? I don't claim any originality in my ideas, but I think Russia's greatest long-term existential threats are the neoliberal mindset of its economic policymakers and the influx of migrants from Central Asia. I thank Anatoly for raising the latter issue on this site. I am generally supportive of Putin, but "standing up" to the West means little if the same population replacement/Islamification project is allowed to proceed in Russia.

but I think Russia’s greatest long-term existential threats are the neoliberal mindset

You think absolutely correct. Bottom line–economic “liberalism”, “democratic capitalism”, any other simulacra used to cover up financial parasites, do not work, they never worked anywhere. Continuing with neo-liberal monetarist policies of Russia’s oligarchic class, as represented by such “thinkers” as Kudrin, Gref, Medvedev (among other Gaidarists) is clear and present danger to Russia. The same as refusing revision of robber “privatization” of 1990s. Here, Putin is a liability–he had no background whatsoever in serious industry or military (being some mid-level operative of KGB doesn’t count, Putin is a lawyer by education) by the time he was getting closer to the highest levels of power and that showed, and continues to show, albeit he learns. He (meaning he and those whom he listens to) either comes up with new social contract soon, and the first point of this social contract means a massive re-industrialization (it is ongoing, but slow) and that implies a massive rotation of “elites”, or he will be swept away. I think, at least I hope so, he knows this. Economic “liberalism”, meaning oligarchic capitalism, has no future in Russia. But that gets us deeper into the real history of Russia and into geopolitics of present moment. You may find this interesting. Lavrov, certainly, gets it.

Our country would profit from moving politically and economically closer to European countries.

Visa regime with Central Asia and the South Caucasus

I, for some reason, thought it was about actual policies, not Navalnyi’s wet dreams. Albeit, one has to consider him an excellent tool for what is commonly “termed” as Kremlin. Navalnyi fits perfectly into what can only be described as a good operation of influence by (counter) intelligence services. In the end, attack on Dimon and by default on his “cabinet”, actually, achieved its tacit objectives–Medvedev and what is associated with him is now hated even more. It is one thing to be assaulted from the actual left and center, totally another–by some creature which commands attention of many young “westernizers”.

I, for some reason, thought it was about actual policies, not Navalnyi's wet dreams. Albeit, one has to consider him an excellent tool for what is commonly "termed" as Kremlin. Navalnyi fits perfectly into what can only be described as a good operation of influence by (counter) intelligence services. In the end, attack on Dimon and by default on his "cabinet", actually, achieved its tacit objectives--Medvedev and what is associated with him is now hated even more. It is one thing to be assaulted from the actual left and center, totally another--by some creature which commands attention of many young "westernizers".

That does not mean that such an operation cannot backfire.
Navalny may not take over, but some of proposals might become popular enough that the Kremlin has to adopt them somehow.

So in terms of geopolitics, the Putin vs. Navalny choice boils down to - "Eurasia," global independence and anti-Westernism plus integration with the Central Asia and the Islamic World, vs. integration with Europe (involving loss of being a totally independent global actor) plus separation from the Islamic world. This is reminiscent of the Balkan Orthodox saying expressing preference for being within the Ottoman versus within the Western system - "better a Turkish turban than a Latin tiara."

That is misleading because integration with Europe and integration with the Islamic World do not exclude each other.
Europe is increasingly part of the Islamic World or haven’t you noticed the increasing number of Muslims in Europe?

Europe as Western Civilization is done. It is more complex than just Islamization. Robert Reilly uses term de-Hellenization. I agree with this term, any rational discourse becomes less and less likely in Europe. The only thing left is to guess if "West" will go out with a bang or a whimper. I am more inclined to think the latter, but I could be wrong. Some bizarre geopolitical factors may come into play.

That is misleading because integration with Europe and integration with the Islamic World do not exclude each other.

They don't in theory, but in practice it is far from certain this will happen. And the odds of Russia getting "Islamified" through union with Central Asia are higher than if it were to unite with Europe.

Europe is increasingly part of the Islamic World or haven’t you noticed the increasing number of Muslims in Europe?

A few parts of Europe are up to being about 10% Muslim...and already there is a backlash in those regions. If the number of Muslims grows, so will the strength of the push-back, as we see happening. And much of Europe is under 2% Muslim. Poland has been part of the EU for many years is about .1% Muslim (there are fewer than 2,000 Muslims in the entire country).

Karlin’s not at all clear on why he foresees Navalny’s foreign policy steps as somehow being so hugely detrimental to Russia’s ability to ‘reunify’ itself

It would mean abandoning plans to absorb parts of Ukraine, Belarus and northern Kazakhstan. Close ties with Europe would preclude these things from ever happening.

Belarus and Ukraine are separate nationalities and need no forceful absorption into Russia. Rus was and unwieldy amalgamation of 9-11 principalities that were constantly at war amongst each each other during the middle ages. It was an empire held loosely together by, as AP often points out, a Scandinavian commercial interest. Neither a solid ground unto which to create a new Russian nation. The Soviets tried, and their efforts miserably failed, and any new such plans are also doomed to failure. You seem to be smitten by a disease of the mind related to the loss of an empire: The Russian Empire, that ended a century ago, and the Soviet Empire that ended in the 1990′s. Empires come and go, isn’t it time that you faced reality?…

The boundaries between the Soviet Republics were very largely drawn up by the Bolsheviks in 1922-24. The top Bolsheviks were largely non-Russian, even non-Slavic and the boundaries were often arbitrary and used to punish Russia. The early Bolsheviks hated Russian Nationalism intensely.
At the end of the Soviet Union, the various Republics broke up along the 1922-24 boundaries, to the serious disadvantage of Russia. The Northern half of Kazakhstan is solidly Russian, as is Southern and Eastern Ukraine. There are large Russian minorities in the Baltic Republics and Belarus, held inside the post WWI borders.
As a troll, you will deny all knowledge of this, but to reasonable people, when states break up, borders should follow as closely as possible the actual reality on the ground, not the arbitrary borders defined by malicious tyrants.

but I think Russia’s greatest long-term existential threats are the neoliberal mindset

You think absolutely correct. Bottom line--economic "liberalism", "democratic capitalism", any other simulacra used to cover up financial parasites, do not work, they never worked anywhere. Continuing with neo-liberal monetarist policies of Russia's oligarchic class, as represented by such "thinkers" as Kudrin, Gref, Medvedev (among other Gaidarists) is clear and present danger to Russia. The same as refusing revision of robber "privatization" of 1990s. Here, Putin is a liability--he had no background whatsoever in serious industry or military (being some mid-level operative of KGB doesn't count, Putin is a lawyer by education) by the time he was getting closer to the highest levels of power and that showed, and continues to show, albeit he learns. He (meaning he and those whom he listens to) either comes up with new social contract soon, and the first point of this social contract means a massive re-industrialization (it is ongoing, but slow) and that implies a massive rotation of "elites", or he will be swept away. I think, at least I hope so, he knows this. Economic "liberalism", meaning oligarchic capitalism, has no future in Russia. But that gets us deeper into the real history of Russia and into geopolitics of present moment. You may find this interesting. Lavrov, certainly, gets it.

http://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2017/03/lavrovs-missed-message.html

Thanks for the link. I’ve listened to Lavrov’s speech previously and found it excellent. I’m sure I’ll return it again and again.

Do you follow Dr. Srdja Trifkovic? He recently posted an article that very much supports what you describe.

Do you follow Dr. Srdja Trifkovic? He recently posted an article that very much supports what you describe.

I don't follow him but I do read Chronicles periodically and I read this article you posted. He makes some valid points there but, in general, the actual figures of manufacturing are extremely encouraging. Industry does grow, even despite financial parasites. Most importantly--the number of enclosed technological cycles grows. This can not be discounted at all. In fact, these are the most important indices, not some book cooking. In the end, remember what present Putin gave Medvedev at his birthday.

Belarus and Ukraine are separate nationalities and need no forceful absorption into Russia. Rus was and unwieldy amalgamation of 9-11 principalities that were constantly at war amongst each each other during the middle ages. It was an empire held loosely together by, as AP often points out, a Scandinavian commercial interest. Neither a solid ground unto which to create a new Russian nation. The Soviets tried, and their efforts miserably failed, and any new such plans are also doomed to failure. You seem to be smitten by a disease of the mind related to the loss of an empire: The Russian Empire, that ended a century ago, and the Soviet Empire that ended in the 1990's. Empires come and go, isn't it time that you faced reality?...

The Soviets tried, and their efforts miserably failed

The Soviets are the ones who created the Ukrainian and Belarussian states.
They did the opposite of what you seem to think they did.
And after they were separated, they performed worse than before.

The Bolsheviks had no other option but to initially go along with Ukrainianization. Look and see what they encountered during the Revolutionary era in Ukraine (mostly shot in Kyiv). The Ukrainian national idea was already firmly in the heads of most Ukrainians by 1919 - take a close look at all 20 photos. If you, or anybody else here thinks that it's still possible to Russify the Ukrainian nation at this late stage, one hundred years later, I'd have to classify you as 100% certifiably nuts. Check these photos out, like Doubting Thomas did, with your own eyes:

Do you follow Dr. Srdja Trifkovic? He recently posted an article that very much supports what you describe.

I don’t follow him but I do read Chronicles periodically and I read this article you posted. He makes some valid points there but, in general, the actual figures of manufacturing are extremely encouraging. Industry does grow, even despite financial parasites. Most importantly–the number of enclosed technological cycles grows. This can not be discounted at all. In fact, these are the most important indices, not some book cooking. In the end, remember what present Putin gave Medvedev at his birthday.

Do you follow Dr. Srdja Trifkovic? He recently posted an article that very much supports what you describe.

I don't follow him but I do read Chronicles periodically and I read this article you posted. He makes some valid points there but, in general, the actual figures of manufacturing are extremely encouraging. Industry does grow, even despite financial parasites. Most importantly--the number of enclosed technological cycles grows. This can not be discounted at all. In fact, these are the most important indices, not some book cooking. In the end, remember what present Putin gave Medvedev at his birthday.

Apologies if you’ve posted before, but could you share a link to the manufacturing indices to which you’re referring (if they’re publicly available)?

This is not to mention the fact that Russia had a huge boost in her agricultural sector and now is world's largest exporter of grain. And then comes this teeny-weeny factor of Russia's military-industrial complex. It is my, now academic, contention that most metrics, overwhelmingly monetarist, which "western" so called "economists" use in their "analysis" is nothing more than junk. That is why western "scholars" don't know shit from shinola when trying to predict (or forecast) what Russia is and how she operates. Hell, they do not know what they are themselves. Here, I give a bit of insight in how it all works.

In general, it is a very large topic and I do not want to abuse Anatoly's blog by posting links to mine. But I do write about this a lot. "Western" field of "Russian Studies" is nothing more than a wasteland and most of its "scholars" in US are nothing more than hacks.

That is misleading because integration with Europe and integration with the Islamic World do not exclude each other.
Europe is increasingly part of the Islamic World or haven't you noticed the increasing number of Muslims in Europe?

Europe is increasingly part of the Islamic World

Europe as Western Civilization is done. It is more complex than just Islamization. Robert Reilly uses term de-Hellenization. I agree with this term, any rational discourse becomes less and less likely in Europe. The only thing left is to guess if “West” will go out with a bang or a whimper. I am more inclined to think the latter, but I could be wrong. Some bizarre geopolitical factors may come into play.

Do you follow Dr. Srdja Trifkovic? He recently posted an article that very much supports what you describe.

I don't follow him but I do read Chronicles periodically and I read this article you posted. He makes some valid points there but, in general, the actual figures of manufacturing are extremely encouraging. Industry does grow, even despite financial parasites. Most importantly--the number of enclosed technological cycles grows. This can not be discounted at all. In fact, these are the most important indices, not some book cooking. In the end, remember what present Putin gave Medvedev at his birthday.

In the end, remember what present Putin gave Medvedev at his birthday.

This is not to mention the fact that Russia had a huge boost in her agricultural sector and now is world’s largest exporter of grain. And then comes this teeny-weeny factor of Russia’s military-industrial complex. It is my, now academic, contention that most metrics, overwhelmingly monetarist, which “western” so called “economists” use in their “analysis” is nothing more than junk. That is why western “scholars” don’t know shit from shinola when trying to predict (or forecast) what Russia is and how she operates. Hell, they do not know what they are themselves. Here, I give a bit of insight in how it all works.

In general, it is a very large topic and I do not want to abuse Anatoly’s blog by posting links to mine. But I do write about this a lot. “Western” field of “Russian Studies” is nothing more than a wasteland and most of its “scholars” in US are nothing more than hacks.

The Soviets are the ones who created the Ukrainian and Belarussian states.They did the opposite of what you seem to think they did.And after they were separated, they performed worse than before.

The Bolsheviks had no other option but to initially go along with Ukrainianization. Look and see what they encountered during the Revolutionary era in Ukraine (mostly shot in Kyiv). The Ukrainian national idea was already firmly in the heads of most Ukrainians by 1919 – take a close look at all 20 photos. If you, or anybody else here thinks that it’s still possible to Russify the Ukrainian nation at this late stage, one hundred years later, I’d have to classify you as 100% certifiably nuts. Check these photos out, like Doubting Thomas did, with your own eyes:

The photos did not show that "the Ukrainian national idea was already firmly in the heads of most Ukrainians by 1919". Worse, the Ukrainian map suggest that "russifying the Ukrainian nation" is possible.After all, it depicts Kuban, Rostov, Crimea and other parts of modern Russia as parts of the past Ukraine.

Belarus and Ukraine are separate nationalities and need no forceful absorption into Russia. Rus was and unwieldy amalgamation of 9-11 principalities that were constantly at war amongst each each other during the middle ages. It was an empire held loosely together by, as AP often points out, a Scandinavian commercial interest. Neither a solid ground unto which to create a new Russian nation. The Soviets tried, and their efforts miserably failed, and any new such plans are also doomed to failure. You seem to be smitten by a disease of the mind related to the loss of an empire: The Russian Empire, that ended a century ago, and the Soviet Empire that ended in the 1990's. Empires come and go, isn't it time that you faced reality?...

The boundaries between the Soviet Republics were very largely drawn up by the Bolsheviks in 1922-24. The top Bolsheviks were largely non-Russian, even non-Slavic and the boundaries were often arbitrary and used to punish Russia. The early Bolsheviks hated Russian Nationalism intensely.
At the end of the Soviet Union, the various Republics broke up along the 1922-24 boundaries, to the serious disadvantage of Russia. The Northern half of Kazakhstan is solidly Russian, as is Southern and Eastern Ukraine. There are large Russian minorities in the Baltic Republics and Belarus, held inside the post WWI borders.
As a troll, you will deny all knowledge of this, but to reasonable people, when states break up, borders should follow as closely as possible the actual reality on the ground, not the arbitrary borders defined by malicious tyrants.

In all the areas within the Ukrainian state today, and during the revolutionary era, Ukrainians formed a majority, including the East and South. Only Crimea, added on later did not include a majority of Ukrainians. It's a shame that the most that those who disagree with my views here are only able to lable me as a 'troll', yet nobody is able to discredit my views with any facts.

The boundaries between the Soviet Republics were very largely drawn up by the Bolsheviks in 1922-24.

The boundaries of the Ukrainian SSR was based on the Ukrainian National Republic, whose own boundaries were based on those of the pre-Revolutionary Guberniyas that had Little Russian/Ukrainian majorities. The Bolsheviks just made minor territorial adjustments - they removed some territory northeast of Chernihiv, adding it to Russia, and added parts of Donetsk oblast to Ukraine. In the 1950s they, of course, added Crimea.

The idea that Bolsheviks"created Ukraine" is a very silly myth.

The Northern half of Kazakhstan is solidly Russian, as is Southern and Eastern Ukraine.

Nope. The only solidly Russian area was Crimea (specifically, the southern and coastal parts of Crimea). The urban parts of Donbas have a slight Russian majority or plurality (Donetsk was 48% Russian and 47% Ukrainian). The rest of southern and eastern Ukraine are Ukrainian. Kharkiv city in the East, for example, is 53% Ukrainian and 43% Russian. It is more Ukrainian than Riga is Latvian. The province is 70% Ukrainian, 26% Russian. Odessa city is 62% Ukrainian and 29% Russian.

The boundaries between the Soviet Republics were very largely drawn up by the Bolsheviks in 1922-24. The top Bolsheviks were largely non-Russian, even non-Slavic and the boundaries were often arbitrary and used to punish Russia. The early Bolsheviks hated Russian Nationalism intensely.
At the end of the Soviet Union, the various Republics broke up along the 1922-24 boundaries, to the serious disadvantage of Russia. The Northern half of Kazakhstan is solidly Russian, as is Southern and Eastern Ukraine. There are large Russian minorities in the Baltic Republics and Belarus, held inside the post WWI borders.
As a troll, you will deny all knowledge of this, but to reasonable people, when states break up, borders should follow as closely as possible the actual reality on the ground, not the arbitrary borders defined by malicious tyrants.

In all the areas within the Ukrainian state today, and during the revolutionary era, Ukrainians formed a majority, including the East and South. Only Crimea, added on later did not include a majority of Ukrainians. It’s a shame that the most that those who disagree with my views here are only able to lable me as a ‘troll’, yet nobody is able to discredit my views with any facts.

Belarus and Ukraine are separate nationalities and need no forceful absorption into Russia. Rus was and unwieldy amalgamation of 9-11 principalities that were constantly at war amongst each each other during the middle ages. It was an empire held loosely together by, as AP often points out, a Scandinavian commercial interest. Neither a solid ground unto which to create a new Russian nation. The Soviets tried, and their efforts miserably failed, and any new such plans are also doomed to failure. You seem to be smitten by a disease of the mind related to the loss of an empire: The Russian Empire, that ended a century ago, and the Soviet Empire that ended in the 1990's. Empires come and go, isn't it time that you faced reality?...

The hundreds of billions thrown away on the wars in Syria and Ukraine, and on helping far-off countries, are better spent on improving life at home.

“Hundreds of billions” is ridiculous. The cost of Russia’s Syria intervention has been small, only about $8 billion to date, and support for the Donbass rebels has probably been less than half that. And Russia spends only about $1 billion a year on foreign aid.

The Bolsheviks had no other option but to initially go along with Ukrainianization. Look and see what they encountered during the Revolutionary era in Ukraine (mostly shot in Kyiv). The Ukrainian national idea was already firmly in the heads of most Ukrainians by 1919 - take a close look at all 20 photos. If you, or anybody else here thinks that it's still possible to Russify the Ukrainian nation at this late stage, one hundred years later, I'd have to classify you as 100% certifiably nuts. Check these photos out, like Doubting Thomas did, with your own eyes:

http://www.istpravda.com.ua/artefacts/4d3adbac87083/

The photos did not show that “the Ukrainian national idea was already firmly in the heads of most Ukrainians by 1919″.
Worse, the Ukrainian map suggest that “russifying the Ukrainian nation” is possible.
After all, it depicts Kuban, Rostov, Crimea and other parts of modern Russia as parts of the past Ukraine.

'The photos did not show that “the Ukrainian national idea was already firmly in the heads of most Ukrainians by 1919″.

Why, weren't the crowds large enough for you to consider these manifestatons as real and significant? :-) Kyiv was then the capital city in Ukraine, and the bellweather of public opinion throughout the country, east and west, north and south!

The photos did not show that "the Ukrainian national idea was already firmly in the heads of most Ukrainians by 1919". Worse, the Ukrainian map suggest that "russifying the Ukrainian nation" is possible.After all, it depicts Kuban, Rostov, Crimea and other parts of modern Russia as parts of the past Ukraine.

‘The photos did not show that “the Ukrainian national idea was already firmly in the heads of most Ukrainians by 1919″.

Why, weren’t the crowds large enough for you to consider these manifestatons as real and significant? Kyiv was then the capital city in Ukraine, and the bellweather of public opinion throughout the country, east and west, north and south!

Kiev is not the Ukraine. It does not reflect the country as much as you think.A good example of that is the Soviet referendum in 1991 when all parts of the Ukrainian SSR but Kiev and a few oblasts in West Ukraine voted for a continuation of the USSR: https://www.electoralgeography.com/new/ru/wp-content/gallery/ukraine1991r1/1991-ukraine-referendum-ussr.PNG

Armenia is almost totally dependent on Russia for remittances from expats and military protection. It has *very* poor relations with all its (much stronger) neighbors except Iran.

Unlike say, Tajiks or Georgians; Armenians are definitely a net contributor to the Russian Federation. The average Armenian in Russia is generally more successful than Ivan,unlike (((virtually))) every other non-Slav ethnic group. Unlike the other peoples in the area, Armenians are secure in their identity; so you don’t see the Svidomism that’s constantly displayed in say, Georgians.

Armenians contributed the only Byzantine Emperors who weren’t utter crap, John Tzimisces and the Macedonian and the Comneni Dynasties. We wuz.

I was born in Baku in Armenian dvor (courtyard), there were only two Russian families there, just in case you wonder. I also know some Armenians from Aleppo, I also have Armenian relatives by association (intermarriage). I know the matter quite well. I still have good Armenian friends, some of them my classmates. I also have a good idea of, say, what Burbank Armenian community is. But I don't understand why did you post what you posted in response to me? I didn't say anything about Armenia, I just asked why it was decided that Armenia would be "thrown under the bus", thinking that it was related to the current set of Russia's policies, which do not imply throwing Armenia "under the bus".

'The photos did not show that “the Ukrainian national idea was already firmly in the heads of most Ukrainians by 1919″.

Why, weren't the crowds large enough for you to consider these manifestatons as real and significant? :-) Kyiv was then the capital city in Ukraine, and the bellweather of public opinion throughout the country, east and west, north and south!

Kiev is not the Ukraine. It does not reflect the country as much as you think.
A good example of that is the Soviet referendum in 1991 when all parts of the Ukrainian SSR but Kiev and a few oblasts in West Ukraine voted for a continuation of the USSR:

The boundaries between the Soviet Republics were very largely drawn up by the Bolsheviks in 1922-24. The top Bolsheviks were largely non-Russian, even non-Slavic and the boundaries were often arbitrary and used to punish Russia. The early Bolsheviks hated Russian Nationalism intensely.
At the end of the Soviet Union, the various Republics broke up along the 1922-24 boundaries, to the serious disadvantage of Russia. The Northern half of Kazakhstan is solidly Russian, as is Southern and Eastern Ukraine. There are large Russian minorities in the Baltic Republics and Belarus, held inside the post WWI borders.
As a troll, you will deny all knowledge of this, but to reasonable people, when states break up, borders should follow as closely as possible the actual reality on the ground, not the arbitrary borders defined by malicious tyrants.

The boundaries between the Soviet Republics were very largely drawn up by the Bolsheviks in 1922-24.

The boundaries of the Ukrainian SSR was based on the Ukrainian National Republic, whose own boundaries were based on those of the pre-Revolutionary Guberniyas that had Little Russian/Ukrainian majorities. The Bolsheviks just made minor territorial adjustments – they removed some territory northeast of Chernihiv, adding it to Russia, and added parts of Donetsk oblast to Ukraine. In the 1950s they, of course, added Crimea.

The idea that Bolsheviks”created Ukraine” is a very silly myth.

The Northern half of Kazakhstan is solidly Russian, as is Southern and Eastern Ukraine.

Nope. The only solidly Russian area was Crimea (specifically, the southern and coastal parts of Crimea). The urban parts of Donbas have a slight Russian majority or plurality (Donetsk was 48% Russian and 47% Ukrainian). The rest of southern and eastern Ukraine are Ukrainian. Kharkiv city in the East, for example, is 53% Ukrainian and 43% Russian. It is more Ukrainian than Riga is Latvian. The province is 70% Ukrainian, 26% Russian. Odessa city is 62% Ukrainian and 29% Russian.

Armenia is almost totally dependent on Russia for remittances from expats and military protection. It has *very* poor relations with all its (much stronger) neighbors except Iran.

Unlike say, Tajiks or Georgians; Armenians are definitely a net contributor to the Russian Federation. The average Armenian in Russia is generally more successful than Ivan,unlike (((virtually))) every other non-Slav ethnic group. Unlike the other peoples in the area, Armenians are secure in their identity; so you don't see the Svidomism that's constantly displayed in say, Georgians.

Armenians contributed the only Byzantine Emperors who weren't utter crap, John Tzimisces and the Macedonian and the Comneni Dynasties. We wuz.

I was born in Baku in Armenian dvor (courtyard), there were only two Russian families there, just in case you wonder. I also know some Armenians from Aleppo, I also have Armenian relatives by association (intermarriage). I know the matter quite well. I still have good Armenian friends, some of them my classmates. I also have a good idea of, say, what Burbank Armenian community is. But I don’t understand why did you post what you posted in response to me? I didn’t say anything about Armenia, I just asked why it was decided that Armenia would be “thrown under the bus”, thinking that it was related to the current set of Russia’s policies, which do not imply throwing Armenia “under the bus”.

Kiev is not the Ukraine. It does not reflect the country as much as you think.A good example of that is the Soviet referendum in 1991 when all parts of the Ukrainian SSR but Kiev and a few oblasts in West Ukraine voted for a continuation of the USSR: https://www.electoralgeography.com/new/ru/wp-content/gallery/ukraine1991r1/1991-ukraine-referendum-ussr.PNG

A good example of that is the Soviet referendum in 1991 when all parts of the Ukrainian SSR but Kiev and a few oblasts in West Ukraine voted for a continuation of the USSR:

Independence wasn’t on the ballot outside of western Ukraine. It’s hard to vote for something if it isn’t on the ballot.

On the ballot was whether the people wanted Ukraine to be sovereign, which they did.

That is misleading because integration with Europe and integration with the Islamic World do not exclude each other.
Europe is increasingly part of the Islamic World or haven't you noticed the increasing number of Muslims in Europe?

That is misleading because integration with Europe and integration with the Islamic World do not exclude each other.

They don’t in theory, but in practice it is far from certain this will happen. And the odds of Russia getting “Islamified” through union with Central Asia are higher than if it were to unite with Europe.

Europe is increasingly part of the Islamic World or haven’t you noticed the increasing number of Muslims in Europe?

A few parts of Europe are up to being about 10% Muslim…and already there is a backlash in those regions. If the number of Muslims grows, so will the strength of the push-back, as we see happening. And much of Europe is under 2% Muslim. Poland has been part of the EU for many years is about .1% Muslim (there are fewer than 2,000 Muslims in the entire country).

I suppose if Russia were to enter the EU with full labor mobility all the Central Asians will go to Germany and Sweden (they're welcome) but likewise probably half the elite human capital will decamp to London and Berlin, as happened in the 1990s with the US/Germany/Israel.

And Germany-France-Netherlands can't subsidize Russia like they can Latvia in per capita terms.

Not sure that this is a great trade. I'd rather just invest in a wall, or at least a strict visa regime.

On the ballot was whether the people wanted Ukraine to be sovereign, which they did.

Just like the other Russians.

I don't know about Russia, In Ukraine's case sovereignty literally meant having its own army, its own central bank and currency, etc. USSR was to be changed into something even more loose than the modern EU, basically just a customs union with free travel and labor, but without a common currency. This is what people voted for in that referendum. Independence was only on the ballot in Galicia, but the Ukrainian people voted overwhelmingly for sovereignty.

That is misleading because integration with Europe and integration with the Islamic World do not exclude each other.

They don't in theory, but in practice it is far from certain this will happen. And the odds of Russia getting "Islamified" through union with Central Asia are higher than if it were to unite with Europe.

Europe is increasingly part of the Islamic World or haven’t you noticed the increasing number of Muslims in Europe?

A few parts of Europe are up to being about 10% Muslim...and already there is a backlash in those regions. If the number of Muslims grows, so will the strength of the push-back, as we see happening. And much of Europe is under 2% Muslim. Poland has been part of the EU for many years is about .1% Muslim (there are fewer than 2,000 Muslims in the entire country).

They don’t in theory, but in practice it is far from certain this will happen.

We don’t know whether it is certain or not.

And the odds of Russia getting “Islamified” through union with Central Asia are higher than if it were to unite with Europe.

The Europe scenario you described is supposed to weaken Russia’s independence more which raises the odds as well.

A few parts of Europe are up to being about 10% Muslim…and already there is a backlash in those regions. If the number of Muslims grows, so will the strength of the push-back, as we see happening.

Don’t count on it.
In Germany, the “backlash” is more often to be found in regions with less than average Muslim population.
Remember, Muslim citizens are voters too.

And much of Europe is under 2% Muslim.

Just like Germany in the past. It did not last here and it won’t last there either.

Poland has been part of the EU for many years is about .1% Muslim (there are fewer than 2,000 Muslims in the entire country).

Not just Poland but all countries in the Visegrad
group (and you can throw in Lithuania for historical
reasons) have negligible numbers of Muslims, and are
not eager to acquire more. Unlike in Western Europe which
was largely Muslim-free (and therefore naive) until recently,
the Muslims left a lot of bad memories in Central Europe -
a bloc of Catholic countries whose population is over 70
million - a not insignificant group within the European Union

"In Germany, the “backlash” is more often to be found in regions with less than average Muslim population."

This is rather disingenuous since the difference there is precisely that the areas previously under Soviet influence are reacting to the push for multiculturalism while the areas still under American influence are pacified. Germany is an exception because it's really still two countries and the eastern side is reacting somewhat like the rest of the ex-communist bloc.

In countries that don't have this kind of division obfuscating patterns you do generally see a regional correlation between the immigrant population and the nationalist vote.

That is misleading because integration with Europe and integration with the Islamic World do not exclude each other.

They don't in theory, but in practice it is far from certain this will happen. And the odds of Russia getting "Islamified" through union with Central Asia are higher than if it were to unite with Europe.

Europe is increasingly part of the Islamic World or haven’t you noticed the increasing number of Muslims in Europe?

A few parts of Europe are up to being about 10% Muslim...and already there is a backlash in those regions. If the number of Muslims grows, so will the strength of the push-back, as we see happening. And much of Europe is under 2% Muslim. Poland has been part of the EU for many years is about .1% Muslim (there are fewer than 2,000 Muslims in the entire country).

I suppose if Russia were to enter the EU with full labor mobility all the Central Asians will go to Germany and Sweden (they’re welcome) but likewise probably half the elite human capital will decamp to London and Berlin, as happened in the 1990s with the US/Germany/Israel.

And Germany-France-Netherlands can’t subsidize Russia like they can Latvia in per capita terms.

Not sure that this is a great trade. I’d rather just invest in a wall, or at least a strict visa regime.

I suppose if Russia were to enter the EU with full labor mobility all the Central Asians will go to Germany and Sweden (they’re welcome) but likewise probably half the elite human capital will decamp to London and Berlin, as happened in the 1990s with the US/Germany/Israel.

I don't think it would be nearly as bad as the 90s because Russia itself is in much better shape than it was then, and because the people desperate to leave have already left.

Not sure that this is a great trade. I’d rather just invest in a wall, or at least a strict visa regime.

I was born in Baku in Armenian dvor (courtyard), there were only two Russian families there, just in case you wonder. I also know some Armenians from Aleppo, I also have Armenian relatives by association (intermarriage). I know the matter quite well. I still have good Armenian friends, some of them my classmates. I also have a good idea of, say, what Burbank Armenian community is. But I don't understand why did you post what you posted in response to me? I didn't say anything about Armenia, I just asked why it was decided that Armenia would be "thrown under the bus", thinking that it was related to the current set of Russia's policies, which do not imply throwing Armenia "under the bus".

Simply that a massive % of Armenia’s GDP is dependent on remittances from Russia, and that any reproachment with the West would mean reducing support to places like Transnistria and Artsakh.

In all seriousness, doesn't Armenia receive more remittances from the large and fairly wealthy Southern California diaspora (Glendale, Burbank, LA) than from Armenians working in Russia? Either way, you're certainly right that Armenia depends heavily on Russia and Armenians in Russia.

I'm curious to see stats on how many Armenians are working in the Russian Federation.

Independence wasn’t on the ballot outside of western Ukraine. It’s hard to vote for something if it isn’t on the ballot.

That was not primarily an independence referendum, it was a referendum about the future of the USSR.

On the ballot was whether the people wanted Ukraine to be sovereign, which they did.

Just like the other Russians.

On the ballot was whether the people wanted Ukraine to be sovereign, which they did.

Just like the other Russians.

I don’t know about Russia, In Ukraine’s case sovereignty literally meant having its own army, its own central bank and currency, etc. USSR was to be changed into something even more loose than the modern EU, basically just a customs union with free travel and labor, but without a common currency. This is what people voted for in that referendum. Independence was only on the ballot in Galicia, but the Ukrainian people voted overwhelmingly for sovereignty.

I suppose if Russia were to enter the EU with full labor mobility all the Central Asians will go to Germany and Sweden (they're welcome) but likewise probably half the elite human capital will decamp to London and Berlin, as happened in the 1990s with the US/Germany/Israel.

And Germany-France-Netherlands can't subsidize Russia like they can Latvia in per capita terms.

Not sure that this is a great trade. I'd rather just invest in a wall, or at least a strict visa regime.

I suppose if Russia were to enter the EU with full labor mobility all the Central Asians will go to Germany and Sweden (they’re welcome) but likewise probably half the elite human capital will decamp to London and Berlin, as happened in the 1990s with the US/Germany/Israel.

I don’t think it would be nearly as bad as the 90s because Russia itself is in much better shape than it was then, and because the people desperate to leave have already left.

Not sure that this is a great trade. I’d rather just invest in a wall, or at least a strict visa regime.

They don’t in theory, but in practice it is far from certain this will happen.

We don't know whether it is certain or not.

And the odds of Russia getting “Islamified” through union with Central Asia are higher than if it were to unite with Europe.

The Europe scenario you described is supposed to weaken Russia's independence more which raises the odds as well.

A few parts of Europe are up to being about 10% Muslim…and already there is a backlash in those regions. If the number of Muslims grows, so will the strength of the push-back, as we see happening.

Don't count on it. In Germany, the "backlash" is more often to be found in regions with less than average Muslim population.Remember, Muslim citizens are voters too.

And much of Europe is under 2% Muslim.

Just like Germany in the past. It did not last here and it won't last there either.

Poland has been part of the EU for many years is about .1% Muslim (there are fewer than 2,000 Muslims in the entire country).

And it is increasingly isolated in Europe.

Not just Poland but all countries in the Visegrad
group (and you can throw in Lithuania for historical
reasons) have negligible numbers of Muslims, and are
not eager to acquire more. Unlike in Western Europe which
was largely Muslim-free (and therefore naive) until recently,
the Muslims left a lot of bad memories in Central Europe -
a bloc of Catholic countries whose population is over 70
million – a not insignificant group within the European Union

Since a small country like Hungary and a medium-sized one like Poland have successfully resisted the western EU’s demands for Muslim settlement why wouldn’t massive Russia?

They only "successfully" resisted because others did not care that much for that.
The numbers were too small to matter.
The real problem for them is going to be freedom of movement and the increasing federalization of Europe.

Germany has a guilt trip that the others lack.

When it comes to growing Muslim population in Europe, Germany is no exception.
Other European countries like Austria or Belgium are no less green.

It is together with Hungary, Croatia, and other new European countries.

All dependent on EU dole, all willing to break with Poland if push comes to shove.

It’s a mistake to treat Poland in isolation
from its neighbors in Central Europe (which,
I know, you don’t make, but others do). Poland,
Czechia, Slovakia, Lusatia, Hungary, Lithuania, and for
many centuries Belarus, Western Ukraine, and
Austria, all Catholic countries ( and in the case of Belarus
and W. Ukraine – heavily Catholic) have evolved
together for about 1,000 years. Poland, for example,
received Christianity through St. Adalbert (Św. Wojciech)
from Bohemia around AD 940-950.

Worldly success is not the highest value in Catholicism.
Monasticism is highly respected. Catholic ethics is very
similar to Buddhist ethics. Restraining the ego is important
in both Catholicism and Buddhism. Hence when the Dalai
Lama visits the West, he often stays at Benedictine abbeys and
says he feels totally at home there. And that’s why, I suppose,
Catholic Austria is more fun to visit than Lutheran Prussia,
and, in relative terms, the Hapsburgs were not as bad as other
dynasties

It's a mistake to treat Poland in isolation
from its neighbors in Central Europe (which,
I know, you don't make, but others do). Poland,
Czechia, Slovakia, Lusatia, Hungary, Lithuania, and for
many centuries Belarus, Western Ukraine, and
Austria, all Catholic countries ( and in the case of Belarus
and W. Ukraine - heavily Catholic) have evolved
together for about 1,000 years. Poland, for example,
received Christianity through St. Adalbert (Św. Wojciech)
from Bohemia around AD 940-950.

Worldly success is not the highest value in Catholicism.
Monasticism is highly respected. Catholic ethics is very
similar to Buddhist ethics. Restraining the ego is important
in both Catholicism and Buddhism. Hence when the Dalai
Lama visits the West, he often stays at Benedictine abbeys and
says he feels totally at home there. And that's why, I suppose,
Catholic Austria is more fun to visit than Lutheran Prussia,
and, in relative terms, the Hapsburgs were not as bad as other
dynasties

Of course, I hope it’s clear that for Belarus and W. Ukraine
I meant they used to be heavily Catholic due to strong
Polish and/or Austrian presence. I was responding to AP

On the ballot was whether the people wanted Ukraine to be sovereign, which they did.

Just like the other Russians.

I don't know about Russia, In Ukraine's case sovereignty literally meant having its own army, its own central bank and currency, etc. USSR was to be changed into something even more loose than the modern EU, basically just a customs union with free travel and labor, but without a common currency. This is what people voted for in that referendum. Independence was only on the ballot in Galicia, but the Ukrainian people voted overwhelmingly for sovereignty.

I don’t know about Russia

Russia’s sovereignty was declared first.

Ukraine’s case sovereignty literally meant having its own army, its own central bank and currency

Except that Ukrainian army and currency were only established after the declaration of independence in August 1991 and not after the referendum which suggest something else.

The Ukrainian SSR guarantees national and cultural recovery of the Ukrainian nation, its historical consciousness and traditions, national and ethnographic characteristics, and functioning of the Ukrainian language in all spheres of social activity.

The Ukrainian SSR has the right to its own armed forces.

The Ukrainian SSR has its own internal armies and bodies of state security subordinated to the Verkhovna Rada of the Ukrainian SSR.

The Ukrainian SSR, as an international law subject, maintains direct relations with other states, enters into agreements with them, exchanges diplomatic, consular and trade representatives, and participates in the activity of international organizations to the full extent necessary for effective guarantees of the Republic's national interests in political, economic, ecological, informational, scholarly, technical, cultural, and sports spheres.

:::::::::::::::::

So, I think the stupid myth about voting for the USSR in March 1991 has been shattered? :-)

"And the odds of Russia getting “Islamified” through union with Central Asia are higher than if it were to unite with Europe."

The Europe scenario you described is supposed to weaken Russia’s independence more which raises the odds as well.

Since a small country like Hungary and a medium-sized one like Poland have successfully resisted the western EU's demands for Muslim settlement why wouldn't massive Russia?

And much of Europe is under 2% Muslim.

Just like Germany in the past. It did not last here and it won’t last there either.

Germany has a guilt trip that the others lack.

"Poland has been part of the EU for many years is about .1% Muslim (there are fewer than 2,000 Muslims in the entire country)."

And it is increasingly isolated in Europe.

It is together with Hungary, Croatia, and other new European countries. And if Russia were to join (it won't...we are speaking hypothetically here) it would be much less isolated on such issues.

Since a small country like Hungary and a medium-sized one like Poland have successfully resisted the western EU’s demands for Muslim settlement why wouldn’t massive Russia?

They only “successfully” resisted because others did not care that much for that.
The numbers were too small to matter.
The real problem for them is going to be freedom of movement and the increasing federalization of Europe.

Germany has a guilt trip that the others lack.

When it comes to growing Muslim population in Europe, Germany is no exception.
Other European countries like Austria or Belgium are no less green.

It is together with Hungary, Croatia, and other new European countries.

All dependent on EU dole, all willing to break with Poland if push comes to shove.

"Since a small country like Hungary and a medium-sized one like Poland have successfully resisted the western EU’s demands for Muslim settlement why wouldn’t massive Russia?"

They only “successfully” resisted because others did not care that much for that.
The numbers were too small to matter.
The real problem for them is going to be freedom of movement and the increasing federalization of Europe.

Since a small country like Hungary and a medium-sized one like Poland have successfully resisted the western EU’s demands for Muslim settlement why wouldn’t massive Russia?

They only "successfully" resisted because others did not care that much for that.
The numbers were too small to matter.
The real problem for them is going to be freedom of movement and the increasing federalization of Europe.

Germany has a guilt trip that the others lack.

When it comes to growing Muslim population in Europe, Germany is no exception.
Other European countries like Austria or Belgium are no less green.

It is together with Hungary, Croatia, and other new European countries.

All dependent on EU dole, all willing to break with Poland if push comes to shove.

Of course, the Russians are desperately wishing for
the EU project to fail, as shown by the sarcastic comments
by Karlin or Saker. Nothing is guaranteed but we shall see

Since a small country like Hungary and a medium-sized one like Poland have successfully resisted the western EU’s demands for Muslim settlement why wouldn’t massive Russia?

They only "successfully" resisted because others did not care that much for that.
The numbers were too small to matter.
The real problem for them is going to be freedom of movement and the increasing federalization of Europe.

Germany has a guilt trip that the others lack.

When it comes to growing Muslim population in Europe, Germany is no exception.
Other European countries like Austria or Belgium are no less green.

It is together with Hungary, Croatia, and other new European countries.

All dependent on EU dole, all willing to break with Poland if push comes to shove.

“Since a small country like Hungary and a medium-sized one like Poland have successfully resisted the western EU’s demands for Muslim settlement why wouldn’t massive Russia?”

They only “successfully” resisted because others did not care that much for that.
The numbers were too small to matter.
The real problem for them is going to be freedom of movement and the increasing federalization of Europe.

An Arab or African who can't get into Germany -- or who hears that Germany is cutting back benefits because it is going broke -- will gladly settle in Poland or Hungary if not physically prevented from doing so. Please.

Poland and Hungary are still a big improvement over where they're coming from.

I'm praying that Poland and Hungary have the courage and common sense to close their borders entirely to Muslims, Arabs, and Africans, and leave the EU.

Let the Germans squawk as they surrender to the backwards muslim hordes. Let the US government condemn and threaten as it marginalizes, overtaxes, surveills, mocks, intimidates, disarms, censors, and demographically replaces the historic white European core of America.

Who the Hell cares what a future muslim backwater (Germant) or a future Mexican backwater (the USA) think? Get out ASAP, Poland and Hungary, and save yourselves.

The Ukrainian SSR guarantees national and cultural recovery of the Ukrainian nation, its historical consciousness and traditions, national and ethnographic characteristics, and functioning of the Ukrainian language in all spheres of social activity.

The Ukrainian SSR has the right to its own armed forces.

The Ukrainian SSR has its own internal armies and bodies of state security subordinated to the Verkhovna Rada of the Ukrainian SSR.

The Ukrainian SSR, as an international law subject, maintains direct relations with other states, enters into agreements with them, exchanges diplomatic, consular and trade representatives, and participates in the activity of international organizations to the full extent necessary for effective guarantees of the Republic’s national interests in political, economic, ecological, informational, scholarly, technical, cultural, and sports spheres.

:::::::::::::::::

So, I think the stupid myth about voting for the USSR in March 1991 has been shattered?

haha you sickfuck retard spamtroll.............Russian independence was declared before all of this you idiot

Errr...Ukrainian polls wanting to reunify with Russia .or lamenting the demise of the Soviet Union was in the high 80's by 1995 you idiot. Ukraine lost a significant amount of it's populationdue to its sophisticated people moving to Russia.

They don’t in theory, but in practice it is far from certain this will happen.

We don't know whether it is certain or not.

And the odds of Russia getting “Islamified” through union with Central Asia are higher than if it were to unite with Europe.

The Europe scenario you described is supposed to weaken Russia's independence more which raises the odds as well.

A few parts of Europe are up to being about 10% Muslim…and already there is a backlash in those regions. If the number of Muslims grows, so will the strength of the push-back, as we see happening.

Don't count on it. In Germany, the "backlash" is more often to be found in regions with less than average Muslim population.Remember, Muslim citizens are voters too.

And much of Europe is under 2% Muslim.

Just like Germany in the past. It did not last here and it won't last there either.

Poland has been part of the EU for many years is about .1% Muslim (there are fewer than 2,000 Muslims in the entire country).

And it is increasingly isolated in Europe.

“In Germany, the “backlash” is more often to be found in regions with less than average Muslim population.”

This is rather disingenuous since the difference there is precisely that the areas previously under Soviet influence are reacting to the push for multiculturalism while the areas still under American influence are pacified. Germany is an exception because it’s really still two countries and the eastern side is reacting somewhat like the rest of the ex-communist bloc.

In countries that don’t have this kind of division obfuscating patterns you do generally see a regional correlation between the immigrant population and the nationalist vote.

Simply that a massive % of Armenia's GDP is dependent on remittances from Russia, and that any reproachment with the West would mean reducing support to places like Transnistria and Artsakh.

In all seriousness, doesn’t Armenia receive more remittances from the large and fairly wealthy Southern California diaspora (Glendale, Burbank, LA) than from Armenians working in Russia? Either way, you’re certainly right that Armenia depends heavily on Russia and Armenians in Russia.

I’m curious to see stats on how many Armenians are working in the Russian Federation.

"Since a small country like Hungary and a medium-sized one like Poland have successfully resisted the western EU’s demands for Muslim settlement why wouldn’t massive Russia?"

They only “successfully” resisted because others did not care that much for that.
The numbers were too small to matter.
The real problem for them is going to be freedom of movement and the increasing federalization of Europe.

When it comes to growing Muslim population in Europe, Germany is no exception.
Other European countries like Austria or Belgium are no less green.

I was comparing Germany to eastern European countries. Western ones feel guilty.

An Arab or African who can’t get into Germany — or who hears that Germany is cutting back benefits because it is going broke — will gladly settle in Poland or Hungary if not physically prevented from doing so. Please.

Poland and Hungary are still a big improvement over where they’re coming from.

I’m praying that Poland and Hungary have the courage and common sense to close their borders entirely to Muslims, Arabs, and Africans, and leave the EU.

Let the Germans squawk as they surrender to the backwards muslim hordes. Let the US government condemn and threaten as it marginalizes, overtaxes, surveills, mocks, intimidates, disarms, censors, and demographically replaces the historic white European core of America.

Who the Hell cares what a future muslim backwater (Germant) or a future Mexican backwater (the USA) think? Get out ASAP, Poland and Hungary, and save yourselves.

An Arab or African who can’t get into Germany — or who hears that Germany is cutting back benefits because it is going broke — will gladly settle in Poland or Hungary if not physically prevented from doing so. Please.

No matter how much Germany cuts benefits, Poland offers fewer.

It is as easier to get into Germany as to get into Poland. Germany has more ports and airports, and travelling from the south or west means having to go through Germany to get to Poland. There is no scenario in which an Arab can't get into Germany but can get into Poland. And no reason for an Arab to go through Germany - which is wealthier offers more benefits, is friendlier, and already hosts an Arab community - to get to Poland.

An Arab or African who can't get into Germany -- or who hears that Germany is cutting back benefits because it is going broke -- will gladly settle in Poland or Hungary if not physically prevented from doing so. Please.

Poland and Hungary are still a big improvement over where they're coming from.

I'm praying that Poland and Hungary have the courage and common sense to close their borders entirely to Muslims, Arabs, and Africans, and leave the EU.

Let the Germans squawk as they surrender to the backwards muslim hordes. Let the US government condemn and threaten as it marginalizes, overtaxes, surveills, mocks, intimidates, disarms, censors, and demographically replaces the historic white European core of America.

Who the Hell cares what a future muslim backwater (Germant) or a future Mexican backwater (the USA) think? Get out ASAP, Poland and Hungary, and save yourselves.

An Arab or African who can’t get into Germany — or who hears that Germany is cutting back benefits because it is going broke — will gladly settle in Poland or Hungary if not physically prevented from doing so. Please.

No matter how much Germany cuts benefits, Poland offers fewer.

It is as easier to get into Germany as to get into Poland. Germany has more ports and airports, and travelling from the south or west means having to go through Germany to get to Poland. There is no scenario in which an Arab can’t get into Germany but can get into Poland. And no reason for an Arab to go through Germany – which is wealthier offers more benefits, is friendlier, and already hosts an Arab community – to get to Poland.

OT I wonder why Russia is doing so poorly
in soccer. In the latest FIFA rankings Russia
ranks 61, Ukraine 37, Poland 11 (higher than
England and Italy). Even Uzbekistan is better than
Russia. It’s hard to avoid the feeling that Russia
(and Ukraine) are going through some sort
of national crisis

The Ukrainian SSR guarantees national and cultural recovery of the Ukrainian nation, its historical consciousness and traditions, national and ethnographic characteristics, and functioning of the Ukrainian language in all spheres of social activity.

The Ukrainian SSR has the right to its own armed forces.

The Ukrainian SSR has its own internal armies and bodies of state security subordinated to the Verkhovna Rada of the Ukrainian SSR.

The Ukrainian SSR, as an international law subject, maintains direct relations with other states, enters into agreements with them, exchanges diplomatic, consular and trade representatives, and participates in the activity of international organizations to the full extent necessary for effective guarantees of the Republic's national interests in political, economic, ecological, informational, scholarly, technical, cultural, and sports spheres.

:::::::::::::::::

So, I think the stupid myth about voting for the USSR in March 1991 has been shattered? :-)

haha you sickfuck retard spamtroll………….Russian independence was declared before all of this you idiot

Errr…Ukrainian polls wanting to reunify with Russia .or lamenting the demise of the Soviet Union was in the high 80′s by 1995 you idiot. Ukraine lost a significant amount of it’s populationdue to its sophisticated people moving to Russia.

Russia is “naturally” corrupt, like most of the rest of South/Eastern Europe

Yes, because some anonymous “chick” read an article about the Hajnal line in Wikipedia and drew a line on a map in Paint where Russia occurred on the “wrong” side. Go on with believing some pseudo-scientific hogwash.

Perhaps bureaucracy does not grow from nothing but has appeared as a barrier against fraudsters and fraudulent schemes. Even now with the excessive bureaucracy fraudsters are doing very well like getting a loan from a bank using counterfeit documents, because, well, “you only need a passport to get 0% loan” as the advertisement says.

Russia is “naturally” corrupt, like most of the rest of South/Eastern Europe

Yes, because some anonymous "chick" read an article about the Hajnal line in Wikipedia and drew a line on a map in Paint where Russia occurred on the "wrong" side. Go on with believing some pseudo-scientific hogwash.

The line has nothing to do with corruption, Hajnal never said a word about that. I couldn't find any map that Hajnal might have drawn himself, so the whole theory is based on an article in Wikipedia and a rough inaccurate map drawn by someone in Paint.

The line has nothing to do with corruption, Hajnal never said a word about that. I couldn’t find any map that Hajnal might have drawn himself, so the whole theory is based on an article in Wikipedia and a rough inaccurate map drawn by someone in Paint.